I found chapter 7 of Souryal’s Ethics in Criminal Justice to be extremely enlightening and well drafted. Souryal takes the reader through the racial prejudice and racial discrimination issues ranging from the temperament of racism, the fundamental premise of unfairness, the racial biasness and the causes of racial unfairness to ethical practices that criticize prejudice. The chapter on racial prejudice and discrimination based on race acts not only like a strategy of introducing and describing notions in moral values, but in addition incorporates historical and theoretical data as well. As a result, this chapter became much more entertaining to read rather than just recording and describing precepts of the key theories on racism. There are some perceptions that I found not only controversial but in addition, informative in this chapter.
One aspect that drew my attention was the findings presented in a three-year research carried out through an extraordinary commission. The report found that New York based judicial systems are plagued by racial discrimination. As stated in the text, the New York judicial system consists of two influential courts; one for white people and an extremely different one for less fortunate and the black.
One disturbing concern I found emerged during Souryal’s discussion on page 238 about a few of the more shocking results made public by the commission. Finding number 4 argues that a less fortunate defendant and his or her relatives are frequently subject to insolence and bad manners by justice system staff, in particular court workers. Souryal argues that a light skin court worker celebrates in practicing his or her authority over people who are chiefly vulnerable and at his or her leniency (Souryal 238). However, I doubt whether those who really subscribe to the racial discrimination would accept this. In our selfish community nowadays, it appears to me that the relation between injustice and awareness is of high importance, since despite how discrimination practices are justified, they are certainly kinds of unawareness.
Injustices are conditions of mind built on believes, levels of understanding lesser than logic. As such, they are extrinsic to the humanity (people are not born with discriminations); rather they are acquired with time as the message the human brain obtains. A person is discriminated in one way or another e.g. some people dislike vanilla ice creams, while others dislike chocolate ice creams (Souryal 243). Therefore, I would expect that understanding of socio-economic and behavioral disciplines, ethical practices, and reasoning tends to decrease injustice through reinforcement of human patience. Alternatively, understanding of egoism and ethnocentrism strengthens indifference and loathing.
I as well found the discussion of culture-based discrimination to be informative. Discriminating, on the basis of culture, has been a subject of research in earlier modules I have done in the criminal justice area. However, the author’s deeper explanations of culture-based discrimination’s moral practice were much more enlightening in this text, because the research of his add-ons to criminal justice was the major purpose in the previous topics. Basically, it appears rather interesting that after discussing the two kinds of discrimination, it has to be stressed that both culture-based and character-based discrimination replicate merely the more ancient perspective of knowing culture relationships (Souryal 245).
However, the discussion leaves one additional issue that keeps on clouding our knowledge of racism: the perception of racism as an outcome of an inner feeling of inadequacy and intimidation. From my earlier knowledge of criminal justice, a person who feels intimidated tends to channel his or her injustice to those whom he or she perceives to be highly intimidated yet intimidating. I have had an opportunity of reading on the illogical perception of the Japanese people by U.S automobile workers in the early 1990s when Japan-made automobiles outsold many Detroit automobiles that scored low on quality and technology which is an excellent example of this view.
The illogical perceptions of Jewish nationals by many, in particular by Arabian nationals, who share similar Semitic racial background with their Jewish counterparts, are an interesting example of this perspective (Souryal 246). This contradicts developments we have seen in social disciplines lately, knowing the truth regarding racism needs to be sought in the wider perspective of socio-psychological literature.
Another section of this text I found captivating was the discussion on roots of discrimination. On page 247, the author defines discrimination based on socio-economic, political, and mental aspects (or even based on free selection). Souryal argues that this strategy of rationalizing discrimination is neither rationally misinforming nor practically troubling. However, from my knowledge of racism, many theorists, comprising the popular Plato, have tried merely that to differing levels of success.
Based on this, anyone can present a valid premise in support of racialist practices. I find it more reasonable to justify racial discrimination on the grounds of an ethical practice. Souryal argues that “ethical verdict” has to be built on practices obtained from ethics, high-leveled understanding, basic virtues, religious perceptions, and aspects of the ethics (Souryal 248).
Concerning the course discussions, I found the moral dilemma thread to be informative. It is an indication that this concern is widespread and it manifests itself in various sections of the text. An excellent discussion on the legal origins of discrimination was provided. This concern actually still continues, in spite of numerous agencies taking tough measures. These concerns in addition appear to be impacting judicial system staff globally – despite the social and economic conditions they enjoy and that tend to be rather distinct from country to country. I in addition found the discussion on reverse discrimination enlightening.
These situations are vividly those that force you to step aside from the “legislation” and critically examine if the “legislation” sometimes generates more intimidation than justice (Souryal 258). In addition, Souryal illustrated the freedom that officers have to interpret that legislation as a situation emerges.
Regarding class activities, I find the assignments to be of less complexity this far. I have managed a few weeks ahead in reading the text, which is aiding me very much as it provides me with more time of working towards the written assignment. I find week eight timetable enjoyable, however a single setback is that the schedule causes assignments to be carried out within a comparatively short duration.
I am ready to apply the moral models I have been exposed to in practical, contemporary criminal justice conditions. Generally I find the text, in particular chapter 7 to be interesting so far. In conclusion, the author takes the reader through the racial prejudice and racial discrimination issues ranging from the temperament of racism, the fundamental premise of unfairness, the racial biasness and the causes of racial unfairness to ethical practices that criticize prejudice.
Works Cited
Souryal, Sam. Ethics in Criminal Justice: In Search of the Truth. 5th ed. 2010. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Company. Print.